Patient reported outcomes in head and neck cancer: selecting instruments for quality of life integration in clinical protocols

Abstract

BackgroundHealth Related Quality of Life has been used in medical research for more than twenty years, being progressively accepted during the last decade as an important patient reported outcome. Considering the multidimensional approach involved in Health Related Quality of Life assessment, instrument applicability and cultural adaptation must be tested for each population. In order to select the most appropriate instrument for Head and Neck cancer patients, two major Health Related Quality of Life specific questionnaires for Head and Neck cancer patients were compared. Conceptual differences, psychometric characteristics, scores, reliability, construct validity and sensitivity to symptomatology, tumour location, tumour size were analyzed.Methods102 consecutive Head and Neck cancer patients completed two different Health Related Quality of Life questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-C30 and its specific head and neck module QLQ-H&N35 and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scales (FACT-H&N). Patients completed the questionnaires, immediately before consultation as a part of the routine evaluation.ResultsA greater variability was always found in the EORTC QLC-C30 questionnaire's scores for all comparable domains. Both instruments revealed a good internal consistency and demonstrated to be good tools to distinguish symptomatic patients. The EORTC questionnaires still demonstrated sensitivity to distinguish T3 and T4 staging. Conceptual differences and the psychometric characteristics are discussed. Our results suggest that these two instruments assess different aspects of Health Related Quality of Life - the questionnaires should be used separately and chosen according to the study objectives and methodology.ConclusionsThis study emphases the importance in selecting the appropriate tool as a critical success factor in implementing routine Health Related Quality of Life assessment in clinical practice. This decision assumes particularly importance when utilization of results in real time and integration into clinical protocols are considered.

Quality of life after total laryngectomy: impact of different vocal rehabilitation methods in a middle income country

“…The results show that, in relation to the demographic and clinical characteristics, the study population was predominantly male (8 men for each woman), less than 60 years old, white, of low educational level, and at the time of the interview lived with a companion, had clinical staging IV, and had undergone radiotherapy. Similar results have been obtained in other studies where the patients with laryngeal cancer were mostly men and with low educational level [3,4,14]. The replies to the questions concerning the subjective domains of the questionnaire showed that 78.9% of the patients considered their quality of life to be good to excellent and 90.5% indicated that their health was equal to or better than before diagnosis.…”

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Among Impaired Taste and Treatment, Treatment Type, and Tumor Site in Head and Neck Cancer Treatment Survivors

“…The UW-QOL has an overall internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha of 0.85. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.95 (Silveira et al, 2010;Weymuller, Alsarraf, Yueh, Deleyiannis, & Coltrera, 2001).…”

Comparative analysis of quality of life in advanced laryngeal and oral cancer undergoing extensive surgeries

“…The objective of this study was not to evaluate patients' survival, but many deaths were found among patients with oral cavity cancer. Rogers et al 16 stated that even with the combination of extensive surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy, studies show that curative treatment occurs only in the minority of cases and that less than 30% of patients will survive after 5 years 27 .…”